New science GCSE slammed
Wednesday, 11 Oct 2006 11:58
New GCSE is attempting to make science more mainstream
Leading British scientists have launched a scathing attack on the government this morning for making the new science GCSE more "suitable to the pub than the school-room".
A number of top scientists have expressed concern over the "back-to-front approach" to science education shown in the government's so-called 21st century science GCSE, which combines the traditional subjects of physics, chemistry and biology.
Changes to science education have been fuelled by statistics which revealed that A-level entries in physics reached a new low this year with 37 per cent fewer students choosing to take the subject than in 1991.
Unveiled last month, the new syllabus is aimed at encouraging debate about the key issues in science, but today a host of educationalists, ethicists and researchers have said that much of the curriculum will be of little use for careers in science.
Their comments come in support of a report written for the Institute of Ideas by David Perks, head of physics at a London state secondary school, which claims that attempts to make science more popular are creating a watered-down science education.
In the report Mr Perks wrote: "We have arrived at a confused and contradictory situation that threatens to undermine our ability to deliver what so many people say we need: many more students studying science to a higher level."
Sir Richard Sykes, rector of Imperial College London, has warned that state schools now risk teaching "sound-bite science".
"[A] science curriculum based on encouraging pupils to debate science in the news is taking a back-to-front approach. Science should inform the news agenda, not the other way around," he said in support of the report.
Baroness Mary Warnock, the veteran ethicist, has criticised the "degeneration" of science education in to media debate.
"What counts as an issue to be debated in class is largely, as David Perks points out, dictated by the press…. Far too much teaching at school has already degenerated into this kind of debate, more suitable for the pub than the schoolroom."
And Dr Eliot Forster, vice president of development at the global pharmaceutical company Pfizer, warned that the new GCSE could result in the UK falling behind developing countries in leading scientific research and development (R&D).
"[In India and China] there is a real hunger for scientific endeavour, largely fuelled by desire for economic growth and improved public health.
"If the UK is to maintain its competitive advantage as a location for pharmaceutical R&D, it needs to take action to ensure that its schools and universities continue to produce science graduates of the highest calibre."
Responding to the criticisms, a spokesman for the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) said that the new science GCSE would "maintain a clear focus on academic rigour" and that it would engage young people in the subject, encouraging them to study it beyond the age of 16.
"Under the new programme pupils will have to study more than one science subject at GCSE. Most pupils currently take a double award GCSE specification and we intend to introduce a statutory entitlement to the study of at least two GCSEs, with the intention that at least 80 per cent of pupils will do so," the DfES said.
"We also propose to establish co-operation between schools, colleges and universities by 2008, so that every child who wishes to choose to study the three separate sciences will be able to do so."